Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-22-2011 PC Minutes , R~,~ ~ ~ ,~y~ }ti.;~ ~d~t. Plannin Commission Minutes ~~~..~C~~~~ g Tuesday, March 22, 2011 ~ CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 22, 2011, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Brown called the meeting to order at 7:05:31 PM Present: Chair Brown; Commissioners Schaub, O'Keefe, and Bhuthimethee; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Tim Cremin, City Attorney; Mike Porto, Consulting Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Wehrenberg ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Schaub, seconded by Cm. Bhuthimethee the minutes of the March 8, 2011 meeting were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 PA 06-060, Avalon Bay Communities, Dublin Station (Transit Center Site C) Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Map 7929, and Development Agreement. Mike Porto, Consulting Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub asked what the areas A-1 & A- 3 will be. Mr. Porto answered that both areas are designated for high density housing. Jeff Baker, Planning Manager, mentioned that a letter was received, through email, late this afternoon from the law firm of Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld who represent the Carpenters ~ Local Union Number 713 regarding the CEQA review of the project. He introduced Tim Cremin, City Attorney who was to speak to the letter. Tim Cremin, City Attorney, spoke regarding the letter relating to the CEQA review for the project. He stated that his office reviewed the letter in detail regarding the objections raised which relate to the CEQA review that is being done for the project. He continued they found ~I'Ca~r.raira~p {'arz~m%ssirrn 1#tarck ~2, 2£~~.7 ~~~u~rir ~e,~tzrrg~ 51 nothing in the letter that establishes a basis for changing the Staff recommendation for the appropriate CEQA review for the project. He stated the City Attorney remains comfortable with the Staff recommendation and stated it complies with CEQA requirements. Therefore, if the Planning Commission decides to move forward on the project the City Attorney would support that. He stated that this is a project for which an EIR was done for the overall Transit Center project. He stated that under CEQA, when that is done, there is a very narrow standard for when further environmental review is required. He continued that under CEQA there is a presumption that no further review is required unless certain standards are met. He stated this residential project qualifies for an exemption under the law because it is under a certified EIR for a Specific Plan and in addition none of the narrow basis for requiring further environmental review has been met. He stated that a number of the facts in the letter are inaccurate and evidence of the misunderstanding of the original approvals. He stated from a legal standpoint the City Attorney is comfortable with the Staff recommendation for the project. Cm. Schaub stated that the CEQA document is not part of the project that is under review tonight. Mr. Cremin stated that the Resolution has a statement of CEQA environxnental determination which is; since an EIR has already been certified for the project and since this is a residential project under a Specific Plan it is exempt from further environmental review. He stated no further environmental review is required and also none of the standards that would otherwise trigger further review are met. He stated it is a finding on reliance of an already certified document. Cm. Schaub understood that the finding has already been made and nothing has changed in that regard. Mr. Cremin agreed and stated that all the mitigation measures are still applicable from that document. Cm. Schaub stated that a Development Agreement that is signed today puts into,place the codes under which the City is required to work at that time. He asked if the codes changed what effect would that have on the Development Agreement and would it still be in effect. Mr. Porto deferred the question to the City Attorney. Mr. Cremin responded that Cm. Schaub's question is how changes in law would apply to an already entitled project. He stated that, in the case of the State Building Code, the code in effect at the time the building permit application is complete is the code that applies to the project. There is no vesting of a code standard existing today just because the project is approved today. He gave an example of the CalGreen project that took effect January 1, 2011 therefore projects that did not have a complete building permit application before that date would be subject to the current codes. Chair Brown stated that in reviewing the Planning Commission meeting minutes from September 14, 2010 several of the commissioners brought up the issue of traffic and they .I~rr.r~irar~ (,'arrcmr:rsarsra `A4at~cfz 2~,>, l~#7.1 4~~~jezGrr ~se~irrg~ 52 recommended in the Conditions of Approval that the traffic situation should be reviewed by the Traffic and Safety Committee. He asked if there were any results from that review. Mr. Porto stated that he spoke with Jaimie Bourgeois, City Traffic Engineer, who reviewed the issue with the Traffic and Safety Committee, toured the site, and then created a response to the property owners who had brought up the issue. The result was that the City painted "Keep Clear" zones in front of both driveways (Iron Horse Parkway and Demarcus) so that the people coming out of the garage from the existing project had a clear pathway to the street. The issue was resolved and both property owners were responded to in writing. Chair Brown stated that there were also concerns by the Commissioners that they felt there was not enough appropriate signs directing traffic into the area and to BART and asked if that issue has been resolved. Mr. Porto responded that the issue was addressed with the City Traffic Engineer but he was unaware of the resolution. Chair Brown stated the Commission had mentioned public art which was commissioned by the City Council and asked if that is still a viable project for the median area. Mr. Porto answered that the Applicant has been very involved with the Public Art Committee and both pieces of public art at the Transit Center. He suggested allowing the Applicant to answer regarding the status of the public art project. Chair Brown stated there was a concern by another Commissioner regarding bicycle storage. He asked what the status of the bicycle storage area is now that there is less storage space in the project. Mr. Porto answered that there is more storage in this project than in any other project in the Transit Center and stated there is more than ample room for bike storage in the project. Chair Brown opened the public hearing. Tom Sheldon, GGLO Architects, spoke in favor of the project. He presented a fly-over video that depicts the changes to the project. Jeff White, Avalon Bay, spoke in favor of the project regarding the public art. He stated there are two components of the public art. The first comes from a commitment that Alameda County Surplus Property Authority made as part of the original entitlement to contribute $200,000 for public art at the Transit Center. He stated a committee was formed of Staff, property owners, and residents in the area. He stated the process took two years to select an artist and have them finish the work. He was just informed that the artist had applied for the Building Permit to install the art. He felt that by fa112011 the art project should be underway or possibly complete. Mr. Porto showed on the slide where the public art will be located at the project. ~I'l~anrairz~ ('camrr~i.ssic~n 5'41czr°c~ ~,}(?11 ~~yzcfzr ~e~~i~~{ ~ 53 Mr. White continued that there will be another public art project that is an additional contribution that will be undertaken by Avalon Bay separately. David Gold, Avalon Bay Communities Attorney, Morrison and Forrester, spoke regarding the project. He supported the views of the City Attorney and felt the project remains in CEQA compliance. He stated the letter raises issues regarding changes in the project and that those changes would require a new EIR. He stated that CEQA rewards projects that have prepared an EIR for a Specific Plan. He continued that development over the last 5-7 years has not boomed as anticipated when the EIR was created. The EIR analyzed very substantial impacts, made assumptions for growth that did not occur and because these changes do not meet the CEQA threshold of substantial changes, it did not trigger major revisions. He stated that the revisions to the project were made to reduce the impacts and felt the logic that those changes should trigger a need to redo CEQA doesri t hold. He felt there is no merit to their request. He continued there is an incentive created by State law for Specific Plans allowing minor adjustments within the Specific Plan area. He felt the letter misconstrues the goal and purpose of the State law and felt the CEQA exemption for this project is appropriate. Scott Littlehale, representing Carpenters Local Union 713 and a Dublin resident, Bobby Klein. He stated he wanted to ensure that written comments of Richard Drury, Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld, were entered into the record. He stated it is the view of the Uniori s attorney that the exemption claim by the City is legally improper, that the exemption is not offered without any sort of qualifications or reservations if there are substantial changes to the project as proposed at the time of the creation of the 8 year old EIR. He continued there has been movement of a substantial number of units from one site within the project area to a site closer to the freeway potentially impacting traffic and air quality for the residents of the project. He felt there have been substantial changes of circumstances under which the project is undertaken and felt that the physical environment has changed along the I-580 corridor since the certification of the Final EIR for the Transit Center. He felt that new important information has arisen that could not have been known at the time of the original certification. He stated that it is the argument of their attorney that these conditions do apply, such as; it was not known at the time of certification that there is risk of cancer from roadways; they could not have foreseen AB32 and the green house gas program; or reactive organic gases, etc. He thanked the Planning Commission for their time and for accepting the letter and hoped they would carefully consider his remarks. John Dalrympl, Political Director for the Sheet Metal Workers Union, spoke regarding the project. He requested permission to ask Staff questions. Chair Brown answered yes. Mr. Dalrymple asked since the retail component was removed, how far of a walk will it be to the closest amenities and will there be any at this project. Mr. Porto stated there is still 12,000 square feet of retail space available that has not been leased. He stated that west of the Iron Horse Trail and along Dougherty Road there are retail establishments. Mr. Dalrympl asked what percentage of the project will be affordabie housing and at what leveL <1'Cr~~rczrz~ ~`~rst~sszr~r~ a~cerz6z 22, ?ft1.~ ~ ~egufar~teet€rr~ ~ ~ 54 Mr. Porto answered that 10% will be provided for inclusionary housing and all inclusionary units are at the moderate level. Mr. Dalrympl stated that he is speaking for the Sheet Metal Workers Union only and that they are not part of the issue stated in the letter from Richard Drury, Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld. He stated that the Sheet Metal Workers Union supports these types of projects and felt they provide many economic benefits for the community. He stated he is meeting with the school district, Mayor Sbranti and the principal of the continuation school to discuss the creation of a construction trades career pathway in the apprenticeship trades. He continued the Avalon Bay project could provide an opportunity for students in an apprenticeship program. He stated that the Planning Commission has the ability to add almost anything to the Development Agreement (DA). He suggested that the Planning Commission could add to the DA a requirement that local Apprentices from State approved apprentice programs be used in this project. He felt this program would provide a lifetime career for the students in their own neighborhood. He stated the Union has an agreement with Avalon Bay at Pleasant Hill where they used all Union employees with apprentices being used as well. He suggested this could be a private understanding between the developer and the Union and felt it would serve everybody's interests. He stated he hoped to work with Staff regarding economic benefits derived from projects that are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. He felt the City should be thinking about how to capture those wages and reinvest them into the community and train local kids in a career path. He felt the Planning Commission could suggest to the City Council that they consider using apprentices from a State approved program and he stated he would work with the developer and coordinate the program with the school district. John Rennels, Principal Property Development Officer BART, spoke in favor of the project. Cm. Schaub asked if the project is approved, when would construction begin. Jeff White, stated they are proceeding with design in anticipation of approvals, with a goal to start by fall 2011. He continued they have not received all the internal approvals to begin but have been authorized to proceed with design for the eastern portion of the site. Cm. Schaub asked if the project will be funded. Mr. White answered Aealon is internally funded and the project needs to be approved internally and they are competing with other projects across the US but felt they were on tract to receive those approvals. Cm. O'Keefe was concerned regarding the safety of the tenants in light of the assault incidents at the transit center near Pleasant Hill BART in the last 24 months. Mr. White answered their Pleasant Hill project is directly adjacent to the complex where the incidents occurred which is an older project and not as secure. He stated the Avalon Pleasant Hill project did not have any problems. He stated there is security on evenings and weekends and fully staffed during the day. ~J'fvrrr~zr~~ (;'€a;r~missirrn il~tan(z 2~, 2ttP.P ~~~uGar ~a,~tiza~ 55 Cm. Schaub asked if the ground floor units that were retail and were converted to residential would be able to be returned to retail space in the future. Mr. White answered yes and stated that in their Pleasant Hill project they had retail spaces converted to residential and some have been converted back to retail. He felt it was actually a function of the market. Cm. Schaub felt it was good to have that possibility. Chair Brown closed the public hearing. Cm. Schaub stated he has been with the project for the last 6 years and does not see anything different and felt the project has not been changed. He felt the CEQA document was approved more recently and at that point it was determined that the CEQA document was valid. Mr. Baker responded that there were two recent Transit Center projects reviewed by the Planning Commission; the Esprit project in August 2010 and this project in September 2010. Both projects were based on the same environxnental document. Cm. Schaub stated that the Planning Commission reviewed the environmental document and determined it was still valid and nothing has changed. He felt there was no need to re-evaluate the document and added there will be more projects under the same document. He was in support of the apprentice program but felt it was not appropriate to change the development Agreement or recommend any changes to the Council. Cm. Schaub stated that he liked the project now more than the first time it was reviewed. He felt the colors chosen are much more colorful and would make for a better looking development. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if it would be beneficial to reserve some of the retail spaces for retail and not convert them to residences. Mr. Porto stated that the Applicant's basic project description removed the retail from the area and they have 12,000 sq ft of retail space that has not been leased after 4 years. He stated the units can be converted back to commercial and the two-story look of the area will remain in the event there is an opportunity to return those spaces to a retail component. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt with the project's proximity to the BART station it would be a unique opportunity for commercial. There was a discussion regarding retail vs. residential at the Transit Center. Cm. Bhuthimethee referred to Mr. Dalrumple's suggestion regarding an apprentice program and felt it was a great opportunity for the Commission to provide opportunities for young people and felt it builds on the quality of life. She asked if there is something the Planning Coinmission could do to support that. ~'Cn~rnin~ (,'samtrzi.rsirm .`Mcarxla Z~,~, ~td1.~ ~~p~a~~Zr ~rlectira~ 56 Mr. Baker stated that Mr Dalrympl is asking that the Planning Commission add a term to the DA to address his suggestion. He continued that what is before the Commission is to review the DA and make a recommendation to the City Council. He stated that this is not something typically included in a DA but it could be included but the Council has the ultimate decision. He stated that the Planning Commission could make that recommendation to the City Council if there is a consensus. Chair Brown responded that he has been involved with the education system in Dublin and while he supports Mr. Dalrympl's suggestion and would like to hear more about the opportunities, he felt it was not appropriate to add it to the DA or mandate it in an agreement. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked, if the Commission wanted to make a recommendation to the City Council to include this type of program in the DA, is the appropriate time. Mr. Cremin responded that development agreements are voluntary agreements between both sides who have agreed to the terms. He stated the City's ability to add a term unilaterally would be constrained because the other side would need to agree to it. He continued that the Commission is being asked to make a recommendation on the current DA, but if there is a motion that the Commission supports you could make a recommendation that this program be considered as a message from the Commission. He stated there would need to be the support of at least 3 votes from the Commission. He added that the recommendation would be an add-on to the DA, which means the agreement would not be amended but ask the City Council to consider whatever term it might be. Mr. Baker added that the concept of the program may need some additional studying and may not be practical to have in this particular Development Agreement. He stated the Council receives the minutes from the Planning Commission meetings and will hear what Mr. Dalrympl had to say as well as the Commissiori s discussion. He also referenced the fact that Mr. Dalrympl indicated he has some meetings set up to discuss future implementation. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that improving the quality of life was not totally out of the realm of the Planning Commission. Cm. O'Keefe felt the program needs to be worked through and could be considered in the future. He stated he is in support of the Avalon Bay project overall. He liked the new roof pitches but was not pleased that more of the parking structure will be exposed to the site but felt at build-out of the entire area it should not be a concern. He thanked the Applicant for addressing his concerns regarding tenant safety. Chair Brown was in support of the project and felt the 5 concerns that were discussed by the former Planning Commission were improved. He stated he supports Staff's position on the EIR. Cm. Schaub felt the Commission should address Cm. Bhuthimethee's issue. He felt that they could simply state that, as a group, they listened and discussed the issue and recommend that the City Council address it. He felt that the apprentice program is a good idea but felt the Commission should not recommend to amend the DA. Ct'fr~nnirtg C;a;~rrzz~sirna ~~fur°ch 22, l()t.1 ~~uCar ~Meetiarg{ 57 Cm. Schaub asked to take a straw poll regarding the issue. Chair Brown asked that all in favor of making a recommendation in the minutes for future discussion and consideration by the City Council as opposed to making a recommendation to add something to this development agreement. Chair Brown: Aye Cm.O'Keefe: Aye Cm. Schaub: Aye Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if taking the straw poll meant that the suggestion would not be included to this development agreement. Mr. Baker stated he wanted to clarify that the Commission was taking a poll on where each of the members stands on including in the minutes information for the City Council regarding the Planning Commissiori s general support of the program in the future, but the Commission was not voting to recommend including such language in this developmenf agreement. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if it could be added to the Development Agreement in the future. Chair Brown agreed with the City Attorney that this is a mutual agreement between the City and the Applicant and felt if anything were added it would have to be through that process. Mr. Baker stated it would have to be an amendment because the Development Agreement will be moving forward. Cm. Bhuthimethee: Aye Cm. Schaub wanted to ensure that the Planning Commission reviewed Attachment 5 (Resolution recommending the City Council adopt. the WHEREAS statement regarding CEQA and that the project is found to be exempt. Mr. Baker stated what Cm. Schaub is referring to is in Attachment 5 a Resolution recommending the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving the Stage 1& 2 Development Plan there are statements which are repeated in the other Planning Commission resolutions in support of the recommendation regarding the environmental review. Cm. Schaub also mentioned the Planning Commission made the findings that the project is consistent with the Specific Plan to which an EIR was certified and the project is exempt from further CEQA review. Chair Brown stated he can make all the findings in the resolution approving the Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map. On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Chair Brown, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Wehrenberg being absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: ~J't~an.nirr~j C,ammi.ssirm .`Mczr~~ 22, 2(t1.1 ~g~ufar Jf~f~~tin~ 5g 'I RESOLUTION NO. 11- 09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 7929 FOR AVALON BAY COMMUNITIES, SITE C, DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER (APN 986-0054-005-02) PA 06-060 RESOLUTION NO. 11-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE AVALON BAY COMMUNITIES DUBLIN STATION PROJECT ON SITE C OF THE DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER PA 06-060 RESOLUTION NO. 11- ll A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR DUBLIN STATION, SITE C, DUBLIN TRANSIT CENTER, AVALON BAY COMMUNITIES PA 06-060 NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was a discussion regarding the total number of units at the Avalon Bay, Dublin Transit Center project• the remaining projects; retail/commercial spaces and the reasons why there are problems finding viable tenants. They discussed the vision for the Transit Center and the hope that the commercial spaces would be viable. They discussed parking for the commercial areas and the BART parking structure. OTHER BUSINESS - NONE <I'~CZnnir~~ (,'amrrc%~sisa~ ~~rc~ 22, 2f)Z:I ~~~uCca~ ~e~tirrp 59 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to - meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). There were none. ADTOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 8:30:38 PM Res ec lly s ' ed, Alan Brown Chair Planning Commission ATTES • Jeff ke Planning Manager G: ~ MINUTES ~ 2011 ~ PLANNING COMMISSION ~ 03.22.11 FINAL PC Minutes.doc ~k'l~rzrtnirz~ (,'nrea~s.sir~n ~larcf~ 22, ~~I1.1 ~~~utizr~eeti~r~ 60